Speaking of foob BL2s, a Southern almost-was

[Iain]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Ed Kapuscinski]

After discovering the proposal for an EMD DDR electric, nothing surprises me anymore.

[nkalanaga]

OK, I'll bite:  What was the "EMD DDR electric"?  The only DDR I can think of that would need an electric locomotive is the former East Germany, and I doubt that they would buy one from EMD.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

OK, I'll bite:  What was the "EMD DDR electric"?  The only DDR I can think of that would need an electric locomotive is the former East Germany, and I doubt that they would buy one from EMD.

EMD made a proposal to the Pennsy for an electric double ended unit (that looked like a DD35 but with cabs on both ends) in the 60s. I found the proposal while working on the CRHS archives. It is... astounding.

[C855B]

What Ed didn't mention that this Frankenstein... thingie... wasn't just big, and on EMD's four-axle Flexicoil trucks, it also had a steam generator. Passenger fleet stuff. That automatically sent the brains spinning that it was being proposed as a drop-in replacement for the GG-1s, which explained the two cabs. Considering the GGs operated another 15+ years after the EMD plan infers that whoever solicited the proposal was a little premature. Not to mention the little PC/Amtrak/CR situations that were fomenting at the moment.

In deeper thinking about it as a PRR passenger service loco, I realized that any production version would have more than likely been in a cowl body, a la FP45, a design appearing the year following the Pennsy proposal.

Whatever you do, don't tell @eric220 about it. 

[nickelplate759]

Are there any drawings of the DDR proposal?  It sounds fascinating!.

[delamaize]

Are there any drawings of the DDR proposal?  It sounds fascinating!.

This.

[Sharky_McSharknose]

I remember reading a Model Railroading magazine article about the ultimate BL2 foobie in HO scale: A BL3, complete with a high short hood and dynamic brakes! The article is available online and starts on page 48. http://magazine.trainlife.com/mrr_1996_4/

[nkalanaga]

Thank you, everybody.  I agree, it sounds interesting.  So the "DD" was simply two 4-axle trucks, like the DDm45.

I wonder why the extra length?  The DD35 needed it to hold two engines/generators and for the fuel tank.  An electric doesn't need that, so they could have shortened it considerably.  Take out the fuel tank, and an FP45-length unit would have worked.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Are there any drawings of the DDR proposal?  It sounds fascinating!.

More details:

http://conrailphotos.thecrhs.org/collection319/2020.001.087%20A.jpg
http://conrailphotos.thecrhs.org/collection319/2020.001.087%20B.jpg
http://conrailphotos.thecrhs.org/collection319/2020.001.087%20C.jpg
http://conrailphotos.thecrhs.org/collection319/2020.001.087%20D.jpg
http://conrailphotos.thecrhs.org/collection319/2020.001.087%20E.jpg
http://conrailphotos.thecrhs.org/collection319/2020.001.087%20F.jpg
http://conrailphotos.thecrhs.org/collection319/2020.001.087%20G.jpg

[C855B]

...I wonder why the extra length? ...

The DDm45 you mentioned illustrated the problem - fuel tank is shortened (quite a bit) to make room for the long trucks. The "DDR" had a water tank and a fuel tank for the steam generator, so a "standard" 6-axle frame of the day would be too short, the SDP frame probably also too short. I'll surmise the DD trucks were necessary for more horsepower since the traction motor design then was limited to <1000HP in the "brute force" era, the quoted "6700HP" for the DDR likely part of the proposal to replace two GG-1s with a single unit.

I think EMD was pulling an Alco in this proposal - rattle around in on-hand inventory, drawings and specs to see what could be cobbled together to address the initial customer request. Alco did this for to UP with the C855 series, obviously with resounding success. 

EDIT: I wonder how serious this proposal actually was. I wouldn't be surprised if it took 'em a week or less to throw it together.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

The DDm45 you mentioned illustrated the problem - fuel tank is shortened (quite a bit) to make room for the long trucks. The "DDR" had a water tank and a fuel tank for the steam generator, so a "standard" 6-axle frame of the day would be too short, the SDP frame probably also too short. I'll surmise the DD trucks were necessary for more horsepower since the traction motor design then was limited to <1000HP in the "brute force" era, the quoted "6700HP" for the DDR likely part of the proposal to replace two GG-1s with a single unit.

I think EMD was pulling an Alco in this proposal - rattle around in on-hand inventory, drawings and specs to see what could be cobbled together to address the initial customer request. Alco did this for to UP with the C855 series, obviously with resounding success. 

I've seen this a number of times too. See things like this:
https://crhscollection.omeka.net/items/show/9542
https://crhscollection.omeka.net/items/show/9338

Take some off the shelf stuff, combine it it on paper, see if it sticks.
If it does, THEN do the real engineering.

Obviously these things went nowhere, but it's fun to think "what if".

[davefoxx]

Why does the DDR have dynamic brake fans, since the locomotive could possibly return the current to the catenary, i.e., regenerative braking? 

DFF

[C855B]

Lacking sophisticated electronics not yet the reality in 1966, regen only worked on DC. With AC systems like Pennsy's 25 Hz power, if you feed back into the system you have to sense the frequency and phase, not possible (or very difficult) then. DC-to-AC conversion wasn't easy then, either.